To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

the carolina watchman bruner & james ) } " keep a check uro am vour editors tic proprietors ) rulers ( new series do this and liberty is safe < gen'l harrison ( volume vi number 43 salisbury n c thursday march 7 1850 out the obligation of any constitutional re striction such as is contained in tbe a mendment to which i refer â€” without that upon the principles of eternal justice it self we ought not to deprive those who have property in slaves in this district j of their property without compensating ' them for their full value why sir no j one of the european powers great brit i ain france or any other of the powers ' which undertook to abolish slavery in their respective colonies have ever ven tared to do it without making compensa ' tion they were under no obligation a rising out of any written or other consti tution to do it but under the obligation to which all men ought to bow with horn age â€” that obligation of eternal justice < which declares tbat no man ought to be deprived of his property without a full and just compensation for its value i j know it has been argued that the clause ! of the constitution which requires com pensation for property taken by the public for its use would not apply to the case of the abolition of slavery in the district : because the property is not taken for the i use of the public literally perhaps it would not be taken for the use of the pub j lie ; but it would be taken in considera ; tion of a policy and purpose adopted by j i tbe public as one which it was deemed , ' expedient to carry into full effect and op j eration ; and by a liberal interpretation i ' of the clause it ought to be so far regard , ' ed as taken for the use of the public at the instance of tbe public as to demand compensation to the extent of the value of tbe property if this is not a restriction > \ as to the power of congress over the sub i ( ject of slavery in the district then the , power of congress stands unrestricted j i and that would not be a better condition 1 1 for tbe slaveholder in the district than to ! i assume the restriction contained in the j < amendment i say it would be unrestric ! ' ted by constitutional operation or injunc j ' tion the great restrictions resulting from the obligations of justice would remain j and they are sufficient to exact from con | . gress the duty of ascertaining prior to the j j abolition of slavery the value of the pro ( perty in slaves in the district and of ma j king full fair and just compensation for j , that property j well mr president i said yesterday i there was not a resolution except the first i which contained no concession by either i party that did not either contain some < mutual concession by the two parties or j ' did not contain concessions altogether j ' from the north to the south now with respect to the resolution under j ' consideration the north has contended that j '< the power exists under the constitution to abol j ' ish slavery tbe south i am aware has : ' opposed it and most at least a great portion i ' of the south have contended for tbe opposite \ ' construction what does the resolution do â€” ' ' it asks of both parties to forbear urging their ; ' respective opinions the one to the exclusion of , ' the other but it concedes lo the south all tbat ! i tbe south it appears to me upon this subject j ' ought in reason to demand in so far as it re j quires such conditions as amount to an absn lute security for property in slaves in the dis , ' trict ; such conditions as will prohaly make the ' existence of slavery within the district coeval ' and co-extensive wilh its existence in any ofj the states out of and heyond the district â€” j but sir the second clause of this resolution ' provides " that it is expedient to prohibit with j in the district the trade in slaves brought into ' it from states or places beyond the limits of the j ' district either to be sold therein as mercban j ' dise or to be transported o other markets â€” . well mr president if the concession be made that congress has the power of legislation and | j exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever \ ' bow can it be doubted tbat congress has au thority to prohibit what is called the slave trade in the district of columbia sir my inter \ pretation of the constitution is this : tbat with ; regard to all parts of it which operate upon the \ states congress can exercise no power which , * is not granted power that is the rule for t the action of congress in relation to its legis i * lation upon the slates but in relation to its leg j islation upon this district the reverse i take it ' to be the true rule that congress has all power ! i over the district which is not prohibited by some part of the constitution of the u states ; ' ' in other words that congress has a power witbin the district equivalent to and co-exten ' sive with the power which any state itself ' possesses within its own limits well sir ' does any body doubt the power and the right of any slaveholding states in this union to for bid tbe introduction as merchandise of slaves < within their limits why sir almost every < slaveholding state in the union has exercised i its power to prohibit the introduction of slavery t as merchandise it was in the constitution of â€¢ my own state ; and notwithstanding all the ex | citement and agitation upon the subject of slave i ry which occurred during tbe past year in the t state of kentucky the same principle is incorpo i rated in the new constitution it is in the consti < tution know of mississippi that stale pbobib : its the introduction of slaves within its limits as i merchandise i believe it to be in the consti i tution or in tbe laws of maryland â€” in tbe laws i of virginia â€” in the laws of most of the slave i holding states it is true that the policy of the l different slaveholding states upon this subject l has somewhat vacillated â€” they sometimes a i dopted it and sometimes excluded it â€” bul there i has been no diversity of opinion no departure i from the great principle that every one of ihem i has the power and authority to prohibit the in i troduction of slaves within their respective lim i its if ihey choose to exercise it well then ! sir i really do not think that this resolution < which proposes to abolish tbat trade ought to < be considered as a concession by either class i of the slates to the other class i think it t should be regarded as a common object ac < ceptable to both and conformable to tbe wish t es and feelings of both ; and yet sir in these times of fearful and alarming excitement â€” in j these times when every night that i go to sleep and am awoke up in the morning it is with the apprehension of some new and fearful tidings j of this agitating subject â€” i have seen in the act i of a neighboring state amongst the various contingencies which are enumerated upon the j happening of any one of which delegate are j to be sent to the famous convention which is to assemble at na.-hville in june next ihat a ; mongst other substantive ground for the ap , pointment of delegates to that conveniion â€” ol , delegates from the slate to which i refer â€” one : is that if congress abolish the slave trade in j lhe district of columbia that shall be cause ! for a convention ; in other words it is cause for considering whether this union ought to be | dissolved or not is it possible to portray a greater extent of extravagance to which men may be carried by the indulgence of their pas sions ? sir the power exists ; the duty in my opin ion exists ; and there has been no time â€” as 1 may say in language coincident with tbat used by the honorable senator from alabama â€” there bas been no lime in my public life when i was not willing to concur in tbe abolition of the slave trade in this district i was willing to have done it when virginia's portion of the district was retroceded that lying south oflhe potomac there is still less ground for objec tion to doing it now when the district is limi ted to the portion this side oflhe potomac and when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves heie in a depot for the purpose of trans portation to distant foreign markets is lessened wilh the diminution of the district by the retro cession of that portion to virginia why should slave-traders who buy their slaves in maryland or virginia come here with iheir slaves in order to transport them to new orleans or other southern markets ? wby not transport them from the slates in which ihey are purchased why are the feelings of citizens bere outraged by the scenes exhibited ' and lhe corteges which pass along our avenues . of manacled human beings not collected in our own district not collected at all in our own neighborhood but brought from distant parts of neighboring states why should they be out raged and wbo i there that has a heart ihat does not contemplate a spectacle of ihat kind with horror and indignation ? why should ihey he outraged by a scene so inexcusable and detestable as this sir.il is no concession i repeat from one class of states nor from the other it is an objeel in which both of them it seems to me should heartily unite and in which the one side as much as lhe other should rejoice in adopting inasmuch as it lessens one oflhe causes of in quietude and dissatisfaction which is connected wilh this district abolish the slave-trade in this district ; re-assert the doctrine of the re solution of 183s that hy an implied assent on the part of congress slavery ought nol to be | abolished in the district of columbia whilst il remains in lhe slate of maryland ; re-assert the principle of that resolution and adopt the other healing measures or similar healing measures â€” for i am not attached to any thing that is the production of my own band if any thing better should be offered by any body else â€” adopt the other healing measures which are proposed and which are required by the dis tracted condition of the country and i venture to say that as we have had peace and quiet for the last thirty years since the termination of the missouri controversy we shall have in all human probability peace for a longer period to come upon this unhappy subject of slavery the next resolution is : that more cffeclual provision ought to be made by law according lo the requirement of the constitution for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any slate who may escape into any other slate or ter ritory in the union now mr president upon that subject i go wilh him who goes farthest in the interpreta tion of that clause in the constitution in my humble opinion sir it is a requirement by the constitution of the united states which is nol limited in its operation to tbe congress of lbe united states but extends to every siale in the union and lo the officers of every slate in the union ; and i go one step further il extends to every man in the union and devolves upon them all an obligation to assist in the recovery of a fugitive from labor who takes refuge in or escapes into one of the free states and sir i think 1 can maintain all ihis by a fair inter pretation oflhe constitution it provides â€” that no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof escaping iu to another shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged irorn such ser vice or labor but shall be delivered up on claim of tbe parly lo whom such service or labor may be due it wil be observed mr president that this clause in the constitution is not amongst the enumerated powers granted to congress for if that had been the case it might have been urÂ«Â»ed that congress alone could legislate to carry it into effect ; but it is one oflhe general powers or one of the general rights secured bv this constitutional instrument and it address es itself to all who are bound by the constitu tion of the united stales now sir the offi cers of the general government are bound to lake an oalh lo support the constitution of the united stales ail the officers are required by the constitution lo lake an oalh to support the consiiluiion of lbe united sta'es ; and ail men who love iheir country and are obedient to its laws are bound to assist in the execu tion oflhose laws whether ihey are fundamen tal or derivative i do not say that a private individual is bound to make the tour of his slate in order to assist an owner of a slave to recover his property but i do say if he is pre sent wben the owner of a slave is about to as sert bis rights and endeavor to obtain obses sion of his property every man present \Â» heth er be be an officer of the general government or lbe state government or a private individ ual is bound to assist if men are bound at all lo assist in the execution of lhe laws of iheir country now what is this provision ? il is that such fugitives shall be delivered up ou claim of tbe parly tu whim ouch service or la bor may fee due as has heen already remark ed in the course of the debate upon the hill up on this subject which is now pending the lan guage used in regard lo fugitives from criminal j offences and fugitives from labor is precisely i tbe same tbe fugitive from justice is lobe j delivered up and lo be removed to the state having jurisdiction ; the fugitive from labor io to be delivered up ou claim of the parly to i whom such service io due well has it ever ! been contended on lhe part of any slate that she is not hound to sunender a fugitive from justice upon demand of the stale from which he fled i believe not there have been some exceptions lo the peifiirmanee of this du ty bul ihey have not denied the general right ; and if tbey have refused in an instance to give up the person demanded it has been upon some technical or legal ground not at ul q-teotk ing the general right to have the lugitive sur rendered or the obligation lo deliver him up as intended by the constitution i think then mr president that with regard to the true interpretation ol thi provision of the constitution there can lie no doubt it impos es an obligation upon ail the stales free or slaveholding : it irnpii.es an obligation upon all officers of government stale or federal ; and i will add upon all the people oflhe uni ted slates under parti ar circumstances lo assist in the surrender a ! recovery of a fugi tive slave from his master there has been confusion and i think some misconception on this sidjeci in consequence of a recent decision of the supreme court of the 1'iiited states i think that a decision hao been entirely misapprehended there is a vast difference between imposing impediments and affording facilities for the recovery of fugi tive slaves the supreme court of the uui led stales has only decided that all law ofim pediment are tincoastitulional i know there are some general expressions in lbe opinion to which i have referred â€” the case of maryland against pennsylvania â€” that seem to import oth erwise ; but i think when vou come attentive ly to read the whole opinion and the opinion pronounced hy al tbe judges especially if you lake the trouble of doing what i have done to converse with them as to what their real mean ing was you will find that the whole extent of the authority which they intended to establish was that any laws of impediment enacted by the states were laws ihat were forbidden by the provision of the constitution to which i re fer ; tbat the general government had no right by an act of the congress of the united states to impose obligations upon state officers not imposed by the authority ol their own constitu tion and laws it is impossible the decision could have been otherwise it would have been perfectly extrajudicial the court had no right to decide the question whether the laws of facility were or were nol unconstitutional â€” the only question before the court was the law of impediment passed by the legislature of pennsylvania ; and if tbey had gone beyond the case before them and undertaken lo decide npon a case not before them or a principle which was not fairly comprehended within the case before ihem it would be what the lawyers term an obiter dictum and is not binding either on the court itself or any other tribunal i say it was nol possible that wiih the case before the court of a law for gi'ing facility to the holder of the slave to recover his proper again it was utterly impossible that any tribunal should pronounce a decision thai such aid and assis tance redendered by the authority of the state under this provision of lhe constitution of the i nited slates is unconstitutional and void the court has not said so or if tbey had said so they have transcended their authority aud gone beyond the case which was before them laws passed by slates in order to assist tbe general government so far from being laws repugnant to the constitution would every where be re garded as laws carrying out enforcing and ful filling the constitutional duties which are crea ted hy that instrument why sir as well might it be contended that if congress were to declare war â€” and no one will doubt that the power to declare war is ves ted exclusively in congress ; no state has the right to do it â€” no one will contend seriously i apprehend that alter the declaration of war it would be unconstitutional on lhe part ol any of the slates to assist iu the vigorous and ef fective prosecution of that war ; and yet it would be just as constitutional to lend their aid to the successful and glorious termination of the war in which we might be embarked as it would be to assist in the performance of a high duty which addresses itself to ali lhe states and all the people of all the states mr president i do think that that whole class of legislation beginning in the northern states and extending to some ot the western states by which obstructions aud impediments have been thrown in the way nf lhe recovery of fugitive slaves is unconstitutional and has originated in a spirit which i trust will correct itself when those stales come calmly lo consid er lhe nature and extent of the leileral obliga tions of all the states in this union unless if be virginia the state of which i am a resi dent suffers most by the escape of their slaves to adjoining stales 1 have very little doubt indeed that the extent of loss to the state of kentucky in consequence oflhe escape of her slaves is greater at least in proportion to the total number of slave which are held in \ ir ginia i know full well and so docs the hon orable senator from ohio know that it is at the utmost hazard and insecurity lo life itself that a kentuckian can cro.-s ihe ri*er and go into the interior to lake back in fugitive slave to the place from whence he fled recently an example occurred even in lhe rilj ol cincin nati in respect to one ol our most respectable citizens not having visited ohio al all but covington on lhe opposite side ol the river a little slave of his escaped over lo cincinnati â€” he pursued it ; he found it in the house in which it was concealed ; he look it out ami it was rescued by the violence and fore ol a negro mob fiom his possession the ice of the city standing by and either nnwiiling or unable in afford the assistance which was requisite to en able him lo recover his property upon this subject i io think thai we hive just and serious cause of complaint against the iree states i think they fail in ulilliag a great obligation and ihe failure is precisely up on one of those subjects which in its naiure is tbe most irritating and inflaming lo ihose who live iu he slave states now sir i think it is a maik of no good neighborhood of no kindness ot no courtesy that a man living in a slave stale cannot now with any sort of safely travel in the free states with his servants although he has no purpose whatever of slopping there longer than a short lime and on this whole oot-ject sir bow has the legislation of the tree stales altered for the worse within the course ot the last twenty or thirty years ? why sir most of those states f the watchman n d er year two dollars â€” payable in f ?- ! " l ' rip b_t it not paid in advance two dollars s will be charged n-l an - e ; t inserted at 1 for the first and 25 cts m f as-bseqaent insertion court orders chirged l ' r i higher than these rates a liberal deduc *â€¢' p ' r those who advertise by the year i 1 ' Â°_ tiie editors must be post paid r f '" â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€” tclay's^peech in senate feb 5 slavery question itir clay's compromise continued wkd esday february 6 1850 fhf senate being about to proceed to os i(jeration of the special order be ! ihe resolutions submitted by mr clay kentucky â€” j r mangcm i move sir that lhe j p nce which was granted to the au ?Â» c c yesterday during the remarks of f senator from kentucky be extended ihe ladies b y a tem p orar y suspension t0 ft e rules to day a young and gallant j like this i suppose will be ready to i this privilege atonce laughter jr houston i second the motion i.Â«as my intention if the senator from forth carolina had not anticipated me we made the motion myself %Â«. vice president it is moved im the rules of the senate be suspended io as to admit the ladies from the lobbies ,. floor it is one which requires unanimous consent for its adoption mr foote a single remark mr ; president this motion addresses itself ; 0 not only the gallantry of the body but \ o its sense of justice the ladies were admitted yesterday and participated in ; |, e intellectual banquet then spread for as they were all dismissed before the feast closed and i insist upon it that in i_eer justice they should be admitted to dear tbe continuation of the speech of the vnator from kentucky tbe vice president the chair bears no objection and the motion will as adopted ladies were accordingly admitted to tbe privileged seats and to ladies the cir cular gallery was exclusively devoted j/r clay mr president if there be j in this vast assemblage of beauty grace \ elegance and intelligence any who have 'â– come here under an expectation that the ! bumble individual who now addresses you j means to attempt any display any use of '. ambitious language any extraordinary j ornament or decoration of speech they will be utterly disappointed the season of the year and my own season of life i both admonish me to abstain from the use j of any such ornaments but above all mr president the awful subject upon which it is my duty to address the senate and lhe country forbids my saying any thing hut what pertains strictly to that subject and my sole desire is to make myself in seriousness soberness and plain ness understood by you and by those who think proper to listen to me when yesterday the adjournment of the senate took place at that stage of the j ji>cu_iion of the resolutions which i had j submitted which related to texas and her j boundary i thought i had concluded the whole subject ; but i was reminded by a friend that perhaps i was not sufficiently explicit on a single point and that is the relation of texas and the government of the v states and that portion of the debt o.texas tor which i think a responsibility exists on the part of the united states â€” sir it was said that perhaps it might be nderstood in regard to the proposed rant of three millions or whatever may ethe sum when ascertained to texas in onsideration of the surrender of her title lonewmexicothissideof the kio grande ibt we granted nothing â€” that we merely an obligation which existed ! ipon the government of the united states i consequence of the appropriation of the j sports receivable in the ports of texas j hilst she was an independent power â€” ! tat that is not my understanding mr i resident as between texas and tbe lnited states the obligation on the part ! f texas to pay her portion of the debt ; referred to is complete and unqualified ! nd there is as between these two par ties no obligation on the part of the uni tfd states to pay one dollar of the debt of texas on the contrary by an express ipulation in the resolutions of admission is declared and provided that in no e vf nt do the united states become liable charged with any portion of the debt or abilities of texas it is not therefore w any responsibility which exists to the state of texas on the part of the govern cent of the united states that i think revision ought to be made for that debt v a such thing as between those two arties the responsibility on the part of ws is complete to pay the debt and trip re is no responsibility on the part of * united states to pay one cent but ere is a third party who was no party ot he annexation whatever â€” that is to sa y the creditor of texas who advanced ! e money on the faith of solemn pledges ftade by texas to him to reimburse the loan by the appropriation of the duties cetved on foreign imports ; and he and " e alone is the party to whom we are ound according to the view which i Â°* v e presented of the subject nor can mother creditors of texas complain that provision is made only for a particular ration of the debt leaving the residue of c debt unprovided for by the govern f pn tof the united states because in so r s we may extinguish any portion of e debt of texas under which she is , 0vv bound in so far will it contribute to a j'j-ish the residue of the debts of texas lie l ve l e * unf * s derived from the pub lands held by texas and what other urces she may have applicable to the jj | ment of these debts with more effect pled l _ l e ent * re den including the d n â€¢ p orl - on as we -' as tne unpledgr pÂ°rtion was obligatory upon her and : | she stood bound by it nor can the cred | j itors comphin for another reason texas has all the resources which she had when an independent power with the exception of the duties receivable in her ports upon foreign imports and she is exempted from certain charges expenditures and respon sibilities which she would have had to en counter if she had remained a separate i and independent power ; for example ! she would have had to provide for a cer tain amount of naval force and for a cer tain amount perhaps of militarv force in order to protect herself against mexico or against any foreign enemy whatever but by her annexation to the united states , she became liberated from all these char ! ges and of course her entire revenues may be applicable to the payment of her debts those only excepted which are ne cessary to the support and maintenance of the government of texas | with this explanation upon that part of , the subject i pass to the consideration of i ! the next resolution in the series which i j ! have had the honor to submit and which ' : relates if i am not mistaken to this dis ' j trict resolved that it is inexpedient to abol i ish slavery in the district of columbia j whilst that institution continues to exist in : the state of maryland without the con i sent of that state without the consent ofj i the people of the district and without j just compensation to the owners of slaves within the district mr president an objection at the mo i ; ment was made lo this resolution by some j | honorable senator on the other side of the body that it did not contain an assertion : of the unconstitutionality of the exercise i of the power of abolition i said then as i have uniformly maintained in this body ! as i contended for in 1838 and ever have ! j done that the power to abolish slavery ! within the district of columbia has been j vested in congress by language too clear j and explicit to admit in my judgment of any rational doubt whatever what sir i is the language of the constitution ? -â€¢ to i exercise exclusive legislation in all cases j whatsoever over such district not ex j ceed'mg ten miles square as may by ces sion of particular states and the accept | ance of congress become the seat of the government of the united states now ! sir congress by this grant of power is j invested with all legislation whatsoever over this district not only is it invested but it is exclusively invested with all le gislation whatsoever over the district â€” j can we conceive of human language more j broad and comprehensive than that which j invests a legislative body with exclusive i power in all cases whatsoever of legisla i tion over a given district of territory or j country let me ask sir is ihere any power to abolish slavery in this district ? let me suppose in addition to what i sug gested the other day that slavery had been abolished in maryland and virginia â€” let me add to it the supposition that it was abolished in all the states in the un ion is there any power then to abolish slavery within the district of columbia 1 or is slavery planted here to all eternity without the possibility of the exercise of any legislative power for its abolition ? j ' it cannot be invested in maryland be j j cause the power with which congress is : invested is exclusive maryland there i j fore is excluded and so alltheother states : j of the union are excluded it is here or ! it is nowhere | this was the view which i took in ! ! 1838 and 1 think there is nothing in the ! ! resolution which i offered on that occa j ' sion incompatible with the view which i j ! now present and which this resolution i contains whilst i admitted the power '. j to exist in congress and exclusively in \ congress to legislate in all cases whatso ever consequently in the case of the abo ! lition of slavery within this district if it deemed it proper to do so i admitted on that occasion as i contend now that it is a power which congress cannot in con science and good faith exercise whilst the institution of slavery continues within the state of maryland the case sir is a good deal altered now from what it was twelve years ago when the resolution to which i allude was adopted by the sen ate upon that occasion virginia and maryland both were concerned in the ex ercise of the power but by the retroces sion of that portion of the district which lies south of the potomac virginia be came no more interested in the question of the abolition of slavery within the res idue of the district than any other slave holding state in the union is interested in its abolition the question now is con fined to maryland i said on that ocea sion that although the grant of power is complete and comprehends the right to abolish slavery within the district yet it was a thing which never could have en tered into the conception of maryland or virginia that slavery would be abolished here whilst slavery continued to exist in either of those two ceding states i say moreover what the grant of power itself indicates that although exclusive legis lation in all cases whatsoever over the district was invested in congress within tbe ten miles square it was to make it the seat of government of the u states that was the great prominent substan tial object of the grant and that in exer cising all the powers with which we are invested complete and full as they may , be yet the great purpose â€” that of the \ cession having been made in order to cre ate a suitable seat of government â€” ought to be the leading and controlling idea with congress in the exercise of this power â€” and it is not necessary in order to render it a proper and suitable seat of govern ment for the united states that slavery i j should be abolished within the limits o | i the ten miles square and inasmuch as | at the time of the cession â€” when in a spi j rit of generosity immediately after the j formation of this constitution when all was peace and harmony and concord â€” ! when brotherly affection and fraternal j feeling prevailed throughout this whole ! union â€” when maryland and virginia in j a moment of generous impulse and with j feelings of high regard towards the mem hers of this union chose to make this ' grant neither party could have suspected j that at some distant future period upon ! the agitation of this unfortunate subject j their generous grant without equivalent f wastobe turned against them and thatthe sword was to be uplifted as it were in ! their bosoms to strike at their own hearts ; thus this implied faith this honorable ob j | ligation this necessity and propriety ofj keeping in constant view the great object i of cession these were considerations which in 1838 governed me as they now influence me in submitting the reasons which i have submitted to your consider ation now as then i do not think con gress ought ever as an honorable body acting bona fide in good faith and accord ing to the nature and purposes and ob jects of the cession at the time it was made â€” and looking at the condition of the ceding states at the time congress cannot without the forfeiture of all those obligations of honor which men of honor and nations of honor respect as much as if found literally in so many words in the bond itself â€” congress cannot interfere with the institution of slavery in this dis trict without violation of all these obli gations not in my opinion less sacred and less binding than if inserted in tbe consti tutional instrument itself well sir what does the resolution pro pose the resolution neither affirms nor disaffirms the constitutionality of tbe ex ercise of the power of abolition in this district it is silent upon the subject it says it is inexpedient to do it but upon certain conditions and what are these considerations 1 why first that the state of maryland shall give its consent in other words that the state of maryland | shall release the united states from the obligation of the implied faith which i ; contend is connected with the act of ces ! sion by maryland to the united states : well sir if maryland the only state now ! that ceded any portion of the territory \ which remains to us gives to us her full consent ; in other words if she releases congress from all obligations growing ' out of the cession with regard to sla very i consider it is removing one of the j obstacles to the exercise of the power if j it were deemed expedient to exercise the power but it is removing only one of them : there are two other conditions which are j inserted in this resolution the first is the consent of the people of the district mr president the condition of the peo pie of this district is anomalous it is a condition in violation of the great princi j pies which lie at the bottom of our own ; free institutions and all free institutions because it is the case of a people who are acted upon by legislative authority and ; taxed by legislative authority without j having any voice or representation in the j taxing or legislative body the govern j ment of the united states in respect to the people of this district is a tyranny an absolute government â€” not exercised i tyrannically or arbitralily ; but it is in the | nature of all arbitrary power because if i were to give a definition of arbitrary \ power 1 would say that it is that power j which is exercised by an authority over ! a people who have no voice no represen i tation in the assembly whose edicts or ! laws go forth to act upon the unrepresen | ted people to whom i have referred well ! sir that being their condition and this question of the abolition of slavery affect ; ing them in all the relations which we i can imagine â€” of prosperity society.com j fort peace and happiness â€” i have requir ed as another condition upon which alone | this power should be exercised the con \ sent of the people of the district but sir i have not stopped there this reso lution requires still another and a third ' condition and that is thf.t slavery shall not be abolished within the district of columbia although maryland consents i although tbe people of the district them selves consent without the third condition of making compensation to the owners of the slaves within the district sir it is immaterial to me upon what basis this obligation to compensate for the slaves wbo may be liberated by the authority of congress is placed there is a clause in the constitution of the united states in one of the amendments to the constitution which declares that no private property shall be taken for public use without just i compensation being made to the owner of the property well i think in a just and liberal interpretationof that clause we are restrained from taking the property of the people of the district in slaves on con ' siderations of any public policy or for any conceivable or imaginable use of the pub lic without a full and fair compensation â– to the people of this district but wilh j

the carolina watchman bruner & james ) } " keep a check uro am vour editors tic proprietors ) rulers ( new series do this and liberty is safe < gen'l harrison ( volume vi number 43 salisbury n c thursday march 7 1850 out the obligation of any constitutional re striction such as is contained in tbe a mendment to which i refer â€” without that upon the principles of eternal justice it self we ought not to deprive those who have property in slaves in this district j of their property without compensating ' them for their full value why sir no j one of the european powers great brit i ain france or any other of the powers ' which undertook to abolish slavery in their respective colonies have ever ven tared to do it without making compensa ' tion they were under no obligation a rising out of any written or other consti tution to do it but under the obligation to which all men ought to bow with horn age â€” that obligation of eternal justice < which declares tbat no man ought to be deprived of his property without a full and just compensation for its value i j know it has been argued that the clause ! of the constitution which requires com pensation for property taken by the public for its use would not apply to the case of the abolition of slavery in the district : because the property is not taken for the i use of the public literally perhaps it would not be taken for the use of the pub j lie ; but it would be taken in considera ; tion of a policy and purpose adopted by j i tbe public as one which it was deemed , ' expedient to carry into full effect and op j eration ; and by a liberal interpretation i ' of the clause it ought to be so far regard , ' ed as taken for the use of the public at the instance of tbe public as to demand compensation to the extent of the value of tbe property if this is not a restriction > \ as to the power of congress over the sub i ( ject of slavery in the district then the , power of congress stands unrestricted j i and that would not be a better condition 1 1 for tbe slaveholder in the district than to ! i assume the restriction contained in the j < amendment i say it would be unrestric ! ' ted by constitutional operation or injunc j ' tion the great restrictions resulting from the obligations of justice would remain j and they are sufficient to exact from con | . gress the duty of ascertaining prior to the j j abolition of slavery the value of the pro ( perty in slaves in the district and of ma j king full fair and just compensation for j , that property j well mr president i said yesterday i there was not a resolution except the first i which contained no concession by either i party that did not either contain some < mutual concession by the two parties or j ' did not contain concessions altogether j ' from the north to the south now with respect to the resolution under j ' consideration the north has contended that j '< the power exists under the constitution to abol j ' ish slavery tbe south i am aware has : ' opposed it and most at least a great portion i ' of the south have contended for tbe opposite \ ' construction what does the resolution do â€” ' ' it asks of both parties to forbear urging their ; ' respective opinions the one to the exclusion of , ' the other but it concedes lo the south all tbat ! i tbe south it appears to me upon this subject j ' ought in reason to demand in so far as it re j quires such conditions as amount to an absn lute security for property in slaves in the dis , ' trict ; such conditions as will prohaly make the ' existence of slavery within the district coeval ' and co-extensive wilh its existence in any ofj the states out of and heyond the district â€” j but sir the second clause of this resolution ' provides " that it is expedient to prohibit with j in the district the trade in slaves brought into ' it from states or places beyond the limits of the j ' district either to be sold therein as mercban j ' dise or to be transported o other markets â€” . well mr president if the concession be made that congress has the power of legislation and | j exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever \ ' bow can it be doubted tbat congress has au thority to prohibit what is called the slave trade in the district of columbia sir my inter \ pretation of the constitution is this : tbat with ; regard to all parts of it which operate upon the \ states congress can exercise no power which , * is not granted power that is the rule for t the action of congress in relation to its legis i * lation upon the slates but in relation to its leg j islation upon this district the reverse i take it ' to be the true rule that congress has all power ! i over the district which is not prohibited by some part of the constitution of the u states ; ' ' in other words that congress has a power witbin the district equivalent to and co-exten ' sive with the power which any state itself ' possesses within its own limits well sir ' does any body doubt the power and the right of any slaveholding states in this union to for bid tbe introduction as merchandise of slaves < within their limits why sir almost every < slaveholding state in the union has exercised i its power to prohibit the introduction of slavery t as merchandise it was in the constitution of â€¢ my own state ; and notwithstanding all the ex | citement and agitation upon the subject of slave i ry which occurred during tbe past year in the t state of kentucky the same principle is incorpo i rated in the new constitution it is in the consti < tution know of mississippi that stale pbobib : its the introduction of slaves within its limits as i merchandise i believe it to be in the consti i tution or in tbe laws of maryland â€” in tbe laws i of virginia â€” in the laws of most of the slave i holding states it is true that the policy of the l different slaveholding states upon this subject l has somewhat vacillated â€” they sometimes a i dopted it and sometimes excluded it â€” bul there i has been no diversity of opinion no departure i from the great principle that every one of ihem i has the power and authority to prohibit the in i troduction of slaves within their respective lim i its if ihey choose to exercise it well then ! sir i really do not think that this resolution < which proposes to abolish tbat trade ought to < be considered as a concession by either class i of the slates to the other class i think it t should be regarded as a common object ac < ceptable to both and conformable to tbe wish t es and feelings of both ; and yet sir in these times of fearful and alarming excitement â€” in j these times when every night that i go to sleep and am awoke up in the morning it is with the apprehension of some new and fearful tidings j of this agitating subject â€” i have seen in the act i of a neighboring state amongst the various contingencies which are enumerated upon the j happening of any one of which delegate are j to be sent to the famous convention which is to assemble at na.-hville in june next ihat a ; mongst other substantive ground for the ap , pointment of delegates to that conveniion â€” ol , delegates from the slate to which i refer â€” one : is that if congress abolish the slave trade in j lhe district of columbia that shall be cause ! for a convention ; in other words it is cause for considering whether this union ought to be | dissolved or not is it possible to portray a greater extent of extravagance to which men may be carried by the indulgence of their pas sions ? sir the power exists ; the duty in my opin ion exists ; and there has been no time â€” as 1 may say in language coincident with tbat used by the honorable senator from alabama â€” there bas been no lime in my public life when i was not willing to concur in tbe abolition of the slave trade in this district i was willing to have done it when virginia's portion of the district was retroceded that lying south oflhe potomac there is still less ground for objec tion to doing it now when the district is limi ted to the portion this side oflhe potomac and when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves heie in a depot for the purpose of trans portation to distant foreign markets is lessened wilh the diminution of the district by the retro cession of that portion to virginia why should slave-traders who buy their slaves in maryland or virginia come here with iheir slaves in order to transport them to new orleans or other southern markets ? wby not transport them from the slates in which ihey are purchased why are the feelings of citizens bere outraged by the scenes exhibited ' and lhe corteges which pass along our avenues . of manacled human beings not collected in our own district not collected at all in our own neighborhood but brought from distant parts of neighboring states why should they be out raged and wbo i there that has a heart ihat does not contemplate a spectacle of ihat kind with horror and indignation ? why should ihey he outraged by a scene so inexcusable and detestable as this sir.il is no concession i repeat from one class of states nor from the other it is an objeel in which both of them it seems to me should heartily unite and in which the one side as much as lhe other should rejoice in adopting inasmuch as it lessens one oflhe causes of in quietude and dissatisfaction which is connected wilh this district abolish the slave-trade in this district ; re-assert the doctrine of the re solution of 183s that hy an implied assent on the part of congress slavery ought nol to be | abolished in the district of columbia whilst il remains in lhe slate of maryland ; re-assert the principle of that resolution and adopt the other healing measures or similar healing measures â€” for i am not attached to any thing that is the production of my own band if any thing better should be offered by any body else â€” adopt the other healing measures which are proposed and which are required by the dis tracted condition of the country and i venture to say that as we have had peace and quiet for the last thirty years since the termination of the missouri controversy we shall have in all human probability peace for a longer period to come upon this unhappy subject of slavery the next resolution is : that more cffeclual provision ought to be made by law according lo the requirement of the constitution for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any slate who may escape into any other slate or ter ritory in the union now mr president upon that subject i go wilh him who goes farthest in the interpreta tion of that clause in the constitution in my humble opinion sir it is a requirement by the constitution of the united states which is nol limited in its operation to tbe congress of lbe united states but extends to every siale in the union and lo the officers of every slate in the union ; and i go one step further il extends to every man in the union and devolves upon them all an obligation to assist in the recovery of a fugitive from labor who takes refuge in or escapes into one of the free states and sir i think 1 can maintain all ihis by a fair inter pretation oflhe constitution it provides â€” that no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof escaping iu to another shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged irorn such ser vice or labor but shall be delivered up on claim of tbe parly lo whom such service or labor may be due it wil be observed mr president that this clause in the constitution is not amongst the enumerated powers granted to congress for if that had been the case it might have been urÂ«Â»ed that congress alone could legislate to carry it into effect ; but it is one oflhe general powers or one of the general rights secured bv this constitutional instrument and it address es itself to all who are bound by the constitu tion of the united stales now sir the offi cers of the general government are bound to lake an oalh lo support the constitution of the united stales ail the officers are required by the constitution lo lake an oalh to support the consiiluiion of lbe united sta'es ; and ail men who love iheir country and are obedient to its laws are bound to assist in the execu tion oflhose laws whether ihey are fundamen tal or derivative i do not say that a private individual is bound to make the tour of his slate in order to assist an owner of a slave to recover his property but i do say if he is pre sent wben the owner of a slave is about to as sert bis rights and endeavor to obtain obses sion of his property every man present \Â» heth er be be an officer of the general government or lbe state government or a private individ ual is bound to assist if men are bound at all lo assist in the execution of lhe laws of iheir country now what is this provision ? il is that such fugitives shall be delivered up ou claim of tbe parly tu whim ouch service or la bor may fee due as has heen already remark ed in the course of the debate upon the hill up on this subject which is now pending the lan guage used in regard lo fugitives from criminal j offences and fugitives from labor is precisely i tbe same tbe fugitive from justice is lobe j delivered up and lo be removed to the state having jurisdiction ; the fugitive from labor io to be delivered up ou claim of the parly to i whom such service io due well has it ever ! been contended on lhe part of any slate that she is not hound to sunender a fugitive from justice upon demand of the stale from which he fled i believe not there have been some exceptions lo the peifiirmanee of this du ty bul ihey have not denied the general right ; and if tbey have refused in an instance to give up the person demanded it has been upon some technical or legal ground not at ul q-teotk ing the general right to have the lugitive sur rendered or the obligation lo deliver him up as intended by the constitution i think then mr president that with regard to the true interpretation ol thi provision of the constitution there can lie no doubt it impos es an obligation upon ail the stales free or slaveholding : it irnpii.es an obligation upon all officers of government stale or federal ; and i will add upon all the people oflhe uni ted slates under parti ar circumstances lo assist in the surrender a ! recovery of a fugi tive slave from his master there has been confusion and i think some misconception on this sidjeci in consequence of a recent decision of the supreme court of the 1'iiited states i think that a decision hao been entirely misapprehended there is a vast difference between imposing impediments and affording facilities for the recovery of fugi tive slaves the supreme court of the uui led stales has only decided that all law ofim pediment are tincoastitulional i know there are some general expressions in lbe opinion to which i have referred â€” the case of maryland against pennsylvania â€” that seem to import oth erwise ; but i think when vou come attentive ly to read the whole opinion and the opinion pronounced hy al tbe judges especially if you lake the trouble of doing what i have done to converse with them as to what their real mean ing was you will find that the whole extent of the authority which they intended to establish was that any laws of impediment enacted by the states were laws ihat were forbidden by the provision of the constitution to which i re fer ; tbat the general government had no right by an act of the congress of the united states to impose obligations upon state officers not imposed by the authority ol their own constitu tion and laws it is impossible the decision could have been otherwise it would have been perfectly extrajudicial the court had no right to decide the question whether the laws of facility were or were nol unconstitutional â€” the only question before the court was the law of impediment passed by the legislature of pennsylvania ; and if tbey had gone beyond the case before them and undertaken lo decide npon a case not before them or a principle which was not fairly comprehended within the case before ihem it would be what the lawyers term an obiter dictum and is not binding either on the court itself or any other tribunal i say it was nol possible that wiih the case before the court of a law for gi'ing facility to the holder of the slave to recover his proper again it was utterly impossible that any tribunal should pronounce a decision thai such aid and assis tance redendered by the authority of the state under this provision of lhe constitution of the i nited slates is unconstitutional and void the court has not said so or if tbey had said so they have transcended their authority aud gone beyond the case which was before them laws passed by slates in order to assist tbe general government so far from being laws repugnant to the constitution would every where be re garded as laws carrying out enforcing and ful filling the constitutional duties which are crea ted hy that instrument why sir as well might it be contended that if congress were to declare war â€” and no one will doubt that the power to declare war is ves ted exclusively in congress ; no state has the right to do it â€” no one will contend seriously i apprehend that alter the declaration of war it would be unconstitutional on lhe part ol any of the slates to assist iu the vigorous and ef fective prosecution of that war ; and yet it would be just as constitutional to lend their aid to the successful and glorious termination of the war in which we might be embarked as it would be to assist in the performance of a high duty which addresses itself to ali lhe states and all the people of all the states mr president i do think that that whole class of legislation beginning in the northern states and extending to some ot the western states by which obstructions aud impediments have been thrown in the way nf lhe recovery of fugitive slaves is unconstitutional and has originated in a spirit which i trust will correct itself when those stales come calmly lo consid er lhe nature and extent of the leileral obliga tions of all the states in this union unless if be virginia the state of which i am a resi dent suffers most by the escape of their slaves to adjoining stales 1 have very little doubt indeed that the extent of loss to the state of kentucky in consequence oflhe escape of her slaves is greater at least in proportion to the total number of slave which are held in \ ir ginia i know full well and so docs the hon orable senator from ohio know that it is at the utmost hazard and insecurity lo life itself that a kentuckian can cro.-s ihe ri*er and go into the interior to lake back in fugitive slave to the place from whence he fled recently an example occurred even in lhe rilj ol cincin nati in respect to one ol our most respectable citizens not having visited ohio al all but covington on lhe opposite side ol the river a little slave of his escaped over lo cincinnati â€” he pursued it ; he found it in the house in which it was concealed ; he look it out ami it was rescued by the violence and fore ol a negro mob fiom his possession the ice of the city standing by and either nnwiiling or unable in afford the assistance which was requisite to en able him lo recover his property upon this subject i io think thai we hive just and serious cause of complaint against the iree states i think they fail in ulilliag a great obligation and ihe failure is precisely up on one of those subjects which in its naiure is tbe most irritating and inflaming lo ihose who live iu he slave states now sir i think it is a maik of no good neighborhood of no kindness ot no courtesy that a man living in a slave stale cannot now with any sort of safely travel in the free states with his servants although he has no purpose whatever of slopping there longer than a short lime and on this whole oot-ject sir bow has the legislation of the tree stales altered for the worse within the course ot the last twenty or thirty years ? why sir most of those states f the watchman n d er year two dollars â€” payable in f ?- ! " l ' rip b_t it not paid in advance two dollars s will be charged n-l an - e ; t inserted at 1 for the first and 25 cts m f as-bseqaent insertion court orders chirged l ' r i higher than these rates a liberal deduc *â€¢' p ' r those who advertise by the year i 1 ' Â°_ tiie editors must be post paid r f '" â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€” tclay's^peech in senate feb 5 slavery question itir clay's compromise continued wkd esday february 6 1850 fhf senate being about to proceed to os i(jeration of the special order be ! ihe resolutions submitted by mr clay kentucky â€” j r mangcm i move sir that lhe j p nce which was granted to the au ?Â» c c yesterday during the remarks of f senator from kentucky be extended ihe ladies b y a tem p orar y suspension t0 ft e rules to day a young and gallant j like this i suppose will be ready to i this privilege atonce laughter jr houston i second the motion i.Â«as my intention if the senator from forth carolina had not anticipated me we made the motion myself %Â«. vice president it is moved im the rules of the senate be suspended io as to admit the ladies from the lobbies ,. floor it is one which requires unanimous consent for its adoption mr foote a single remark mr ; president this motion addresses itself ; 0 not only the gallantry of the body but \ o its sense of justice the ladies were admitted yesterday and participated in ; |, e intellectual banquet then spread for as they were all dismissed before the feast closed and i insist upon it that in i_eer justice they should be admitted to dear tbe continuation of the speech of the vnator from kentucky tbe vice president the chair bears no objection and the motion will as adopted ladies were accordingly admitted to tbe privileged seats and to ladies the cir cular gallery was exclusively devoted j/r clay mr president if there be j in this vast assemblage of beauty grace \ elegance and intelligence any who have 'â– come here under an expectation that the ! bumble individual who now addresses you j means to attempt any display any use of '. ambitious language any extraordinary j ornament or decoration of speech they will be utterly disappointed the season of the year and my own season of life i both admonish me to abstain from the use j of any such ornaments but above all mr president the awful subject upon which it is my duty to address the senate and lhe country forbids my saying any thing hut what pertains strictly to that subject and my sole desire is to make myself in seriousness soberness and plain ness understood by you and by those who think proper to listen to me when yesterday the adjournment of the senate took place at that stage of the j ji>cu_iion of the resolutions which i had j submitted which related to texas and her j boundary i thought i had concluded the whole subject ; but i was reminded by a friend that perhaps i was not sufficiently explicit on a single point and that is the relation of texas and the government of the v states and that portion of the debt o.texas tor which i think a responsibility exists on the part of the united states â€” sir it was said that perhaps it might be nderstood in regard to the proposed rant of three millions or whatever may ethe sum when ascertained to texas in onsideration of the surrender of her title lonewmexicothissideof the kio grande ibt we granted nothing â€” that we merely an obligation which existed ! ipon the government of the united states i consequence of the appropriation of the j sports receivable in the ports of texas j hilst she was an independent power â€” ! tat that is not my understanding mr i resident as between texas and tbe lnited states the obligation on the part ! f texas to pay her portion of the debt ; referred to is complete and unqualified ! nd there is as between these two par ties no obligation on the part of the uni tfd states to pay one dollar of the debt of texas on the contrary by an express ipulation in the resolutions of admission is declared and provided that in no e vf nt do the united states become liable charged with any portion of the debt or abilities of texas it is not therefore w any responsibility which exists to the state of texas on the part of the govern cent of the united states that i think revision ought to be made for that debt v a such thing as between those two arties the responsibility on the part of ws is complete to pay the debt and trip re is no responsibility on the part of * united states to pay one cent but ere is a third party who was no party ot he annexation whatever â€” that is to sa y the creditor of texas who advanced ! e money on the faith of solemn pledges ftade by texas to him to reimburse the loan by the appropriation of the duties cetved on foreign imports ; and he and " e alone is the party to whom we are ound according to the view which i Â°* v e presented of the subject nor can mother creditors of texas complain that provision is made only for a particular ration of the debt leaving the residue of c debt unprovided for by the govern f pn tof the united states because in so r s we may extinguish any portion of e debt of texas under which she is , 0vv bound in so far will it contribute to a j'j-ish the residue of the debts of texas lie l ve l e * unf * s derived from the pub lands held by texas and what other urces she may have applicable to the jj | ment of these debts with more effect pled l _ l e ent * re den including the d n â€¢ p orl - on as we -' as tne unpledgr pÂ°rtion was obligatory upon her and : | she stood bound by it nor can the cred | j itors comphin for another reason texas has all the resources which she had when an independent power with the exception of the duties receivable in her ports upon foreign imports and she is exempted from certain charges expenditures and respon sibilities which she would have had to en counter if she had remained a separate i and independent power ; for example ! she would have had to provide for a cer tain amount of naval force and for a cer tain amount perhaps of militarv force in order to protect herself against mexico or against any foreign enemy whatever but by her annexation to the united states , she became liberated from all these char ! ges and of course her entire revenues may be applicable to the payment of her debts those only excepted which are ne cessary to the support and maintenance of the government of texas | with this explanation upon that part of , the subject i pass to the consideration of i ! the next resolution in the series which i j ! have had the honor to submit and which ' : relates if i am not mistaken to this dis ' j trict resolved that it is inexpedient to abol i ish slavery in the district of columbia j whilst that institution continues to exist in : the state of maryland without the con i sent of that state without the consent ofj i the people of the district and without j just compensation to the owners of slaves within the district mr president an objection at the mo i ; ment was made lo this resolution by some j | honorable senator on the other side of the body that it did not contain an assertion : of the unconstitutionality of the exercise i of the power of abolition i said then as i have uniformly maintained in this body ! as i contended for in 1838 and ever have ! j done that the power to abolish slavery ! within the district of columbia has been j vested in congress by language too clear j and explicit to admit in my judgment of any rational doubt whatever what sir i is the language of the constitution ? -â€¢ to i exercise exclusive legislation in all cases j whatsoever over such district not ex j ceed'mg ten miles square as may by ces sion of particular states and the accept | ance of congress become the seat of the government of the united states now ! sir congress by this grant of power is j invested with all legislation whatsoever over this district not only is it invested but it is exclusively invested with all le gislation whatsoever over the district â€” j can we conceive of human language more j broad and comprehensive than that which j invests a legislative body with exclusive i power in all cases whatsoever of legisla i tion over a given district of territory or j country let me ask sir is ihere any power to abolish slavery in this district ? let me suppose in addition to what i sug gested the other day that slavery had been abolished in maryland and virginia â€” let me add to it the supposition that it was abolished in all the states in the un ion is there any power then to abolish slavery within the district of columbia 1 or is slavery planted here to all eternity without the possibility of the exercise of any legislative power for its abolition ? j ' it cannot be invested in maryland be j j cause the power with which congress is : invested is exclusive maryland there i j fore is excluded and so alltheother states : j of the union are excluded it is here or ! it is nowhere | this was the view which i took in ! ! 1838 and 1 think there is nothing in the ! ! resolution which i offered on that occa j ' sion incompatible with the view which i j ! now present and which this resolution i contains whilst i admitted the power '. j to exist in congress and exclusively in \ congress to legislate in all cases whatso ever consequently in the case of the abo ! lition of slavery within this district if it deemed it proper to do so i admitted on that occasion as i contend now that it is a power which congress cannot in con science and good faith exercise whilst the institution of slavery continues within the state of maryland the case sir is a good deal altered now from what it was twelve years ago when the resolution to which i allude was adopted by the sen ate upon that occasion virginia and maryland both were concerned in the ex ercise of the power but by the retroces sion of that portion of the district which lies south of the potomac virginia be came no more interested in the question of the abolition of slavery within the res idue of the district than any other slave holding state in the union is interested in its abolition the question now is con fined to maryland i said on that ocea sion that although the grant of power is complete and comprehends the right to abolish slavery within the district yet it was a thing which never could have en tered into the conception of maryland or virginia that slavery would be abolished here whilst slavery continued to exist in either of those two ceding states i say moreover what the grant of power itself indicates that although exclusive legis lation in all cases whatsoever over the district was invested in congress within tbe ten miles square it was to make it the seat of government of the u states that was the great prominent substan tial object of the grant and that in exer cising all the powers with which we are invested complete and full as they may , be yet the great purpose â€” that of the \ cession having been made in order to cre ate a suitable seat of government â€” ought to be the leading and controlling idea with congress in the exercise of this power â€” and it is not necessary in order to render it a proper and suitable seat of govern ment for the united states that slavery i j should be abolished within the limits o | i the ten miles square and inasmuch as | at the time of the cession â€” when in a spi j rit of generosity immediately after the j formation of this constitution when all was peace and harmony and concord â€” ! when brotherly affection and fraternal j feeling prevailed throughout this whole ! union â€” when maryland and virginia in j a moment of generous impulse and with j feelings of high regard towards the mem hers of this union chose to make this ' grant neither party could have suspected j that at some distant future period upon ! the agitation of this unfortunate subject j their generous grant without equivalent f wastobe turned against them and thatthe sword was to be uplifted as it were in ! their bosoms to strike at their own hearts ; thus this implied faith this honorable ob j | ligation this necessity and propriety ofj keeping in constant view the great object i of cession these were considerations which in 1838 governed me as they now influence me in submitting the reasons which i have submitted to your consider ation now as then i do not think con gress ought ever as an honorable body acting bona fide in good faith and accord ing to the nature and purposes and ob jects of the cession at the time it was made â€” and looking at the condition of the ceding states at the time congress cannot without the forfeiture of all those obligations of honor which men of honor and nations of honor respect as much as if found literally in so many words in the bond itself â€” congress cannot interfere with the institution of slavery in this dis trict without violation of all these obli gations not in my opinion less sacred and less binding than if inserted in tbe consti tutional instrument itself well sir what does the resolution pro pose the resolution neither affirms nor disaffirms the constitutionality of tbe ex ercise of the power of abolition in this district it is silent upon the subject it says it is inexpedient to do it but upon certain conditions and what are these considerations 1 why first that the state of maryland shall give its consent in other words that the state of maryland | shall release the united states from the obligation of the implied faith which i ; contend is connected with the act of ces ! sion by maryland to the united states : well sir if maryland the only state now ! that ceded any portion of the territory \ which remains to us gives to us her full consent ; in other words if she releases congress from all obligations growing ' out of the cession with regard to sla very i consider it is removing one of the j obstacles to the exercise of the power if j it were deemed expedient to exercise the power but it is removing only one of them : there are two other conditions which are j inserted in this resolution the first is the consent of the people of the district mr president the condition of the peo pie of this district is anomalous it is a condition in violation of the great princi j pies which lie at the bottom of our own ; free institutions and all free institutions because it is the case of a people who are acted upon by legislative authority and ; taxed by legislative authority without j having any voice or representation in the j taxing or legislative body the govern j ment of the united states in respect to the people of this district is a tyranny an absolute government â€” not exercised i tyrannically or arbitralily ; but it is in the | nature of all arbitrary power because if i were to give a definition of arbitrary \ power 1 would say that it is that power j which is exercised by an authority over ! a people who have no voice no represen i tation in the assembly whose edicts or ! laws go forth to act upon the unrepresen | ted people to whom i have referred well ! sir that being their condition and this question of the abolition of slavery affect ; ing them in all the relations which we i can imagine â€” of prosperity society.com j fort peace and happiness â€” i have requir ed as another condition upon which alone | this power should be exercised the con \ sent of the people of the district but sir i have not stopped there this reso lution requires still another and a third ' condition and that is thf.t slavery shall not be abolished within the district of columbia although maryland consents i although tbe people of the district them selves consent without the third condition of making compensation to the owners of the slaves within the district sir it is immaterial to me upon what basis this obligation to compensate for the slaves wbo may be liberated by the authority of congress is placed there is a clause in the constitution of the united states in one of the amendments to the constitution which declares that no private property shall be taken for public use without just i compensation being made to the owner of the property well i think in a just and liberal interpretationof that clause we are restrained from taking the property of the people of the district in slaves on con ' siderations of any public policy or for any conceivable or imaginable use of the pub lic without a full and fair compensation â– to the people of this district but wilh j